Tumbler wrote on Feb 12, 2015, 16:42:The law would change an exemption for going to public schools. Currently you have to have your kid vaccinated to go to public schools. But there are exemptions! And one of those is "Personal Belief" aka the parents don't believe in Vaccines.

They are talking about getting rid of that exemption. No one is going to force drugs into your baby. You can home school them, you can send them to a private school (although my guess is they might follow this policy soon) or whatever you want but if you want public school then you need to them vaccinated.

1) Another poster educated me we have in fact already lost the right to our bodies. Shocking to learn, but that's that.2) I was speaking of precedent, not any specific law or proposed legislation. I used that example to show where the precedent was headed. Is it difficult to understand that each bit you take away only makes it easier to take away the next? First it's just public school (that we all pay for and should have equal access to). Next might be private schooling. After that might simply being going out in public. And I'm sure you're all for requiring vaccinations for anyone going out in public. It sounds reasonable enough. But it's also small-minded.

The bigger picture is that you've accepted that your government is allowed to set very specific conditions on your own body or else you are effectively under house arrest. What happens when they decide you need to be injected with something that lowers your testosterone because studies show it lowers the chance of violence in public? That's pretty reasonable too right? What about about a tracking chip so that rescue crews can quickly find you in an emergency? Who wouldn't want that extra precaution? It's all part of the same line of reasoning, and each step makes the next come even sooner.

Prez wrote on Feb 12, 2015, 16:30:It seems pretty convenient to be all contrarian about getting vaccinated but then if you get contract a bacterial infection you are all about those antibiotics; you are in serious pain I doubt you would hesitate to get some painkillers. What do you plan on doing when your appendix flares up? Die of a completely correctable medical condition because you can't trust them lyin' ass doctors? If you find your wife or child on the floor unresponsive I sincerely doubt you would think twice about calling for an ambulance. If you are distrustful of medicine and want to forego hundreds of years of wondrous advancement in the field over silly paranoia then fine, but be consistent about it. Otherwise what is the point?

Not sure if that was directed at me, but I am fairly consistent, in fact. I do not take pain killers. My wife birthed our children naturally. A avoid medicine entirely unless there is danger of permanent damage or death, preferring to correct health problems with lifestyle changes or letting my natural defenses do their job. As for medical procedures.. not the same thing. Drugs specifically I am not in favor of except as a last resort or when the risk analysis sways significantly in their favor. I'm not opposed to the idea of vaccination, but on a case by case evaluation, there are certain vaccines I am against, each for different reasons, all based on scientific evidence, pros vs cons. I am not a religious person whatsoever, but like any independent thinker, I keep a tinfoil hat around.

In regard to some other comments suggesting that I or anyone doesn't understand how herd immunity plays a role in vaccination.. I get it. I've done my homework. But my conclusions are not the same in every case. Plus, I am probably personally biased towards a more primal version of evolution. The weakest in the herd are holding it back.

Julio wrote on Feb 12, 2015, 15:25:If someone else dies from catching an illness from me...well they could choose to be vaccinated themselves. And if they were in a group that did not have that choice - they should be staying away from others when diseases are going around.

it is baffling to me that something this simple and reasonable is so vehemently attacked and belittled (not necessarily so badly in this discussion, but I've seen it so many other times elsewhere)

If you believe in and trust vaccines, get vaccinated. Your concerns stop there. If you cannot, you are the exception. You bear the added responsibility of staying healthy, not literally every other person around you.

Thanks for the link, Flatline. I did not realize we had already lost the right to our own bodies. "the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated" is about as fundamentally opposite of actual freedom as anything possibly can be.

As for your right not to be exposed vs. your neighbor's right to own their own body.. why is it so black and white? Why do pro-vaxxers insist on infringing on everyones' liberties instead of exploring lower impact alternatives? How about instead of vaccinating millions of babies and toddlers every year, vaccinate the relatively few, mostly adult travelers who are the actual and only source of a given disease re-entering this country? How about addressing legitimate concerns of big pharma hidden agendas and mandate that vaccine development be strictly non-profit? How about developing tests to identity those few who might be adversely affected by a vaccine instead of upholding the law that vaccine makers are absolutely unaccountable?

"And now two California state senators are planning to propose legislation that would repeal the personal belief exemption entirely." Readily available, publicized evidence claims vaccines are statistically safe. That's great, and makes legislation like this easy for most folks to swallow.

But let's put the vaccine safety debate aside for a second and evaluate the precedent this legislation would set. The government would be able to inject your baby with drugs, and you would be legally unable to refuse. How does that not scare the shit out of you? What kind of parent are you if it doesn't? What happens when the government abuses this newfound power for other reasons, power it was granted when people narrowly looked at only the reasonable applications instead of the bigger picture?

I'm not advocating against vaccination, but those people who insist they have a right to decide if their babies will be forcibly injected with drugs are the ONLY people with any sense. They absolutely MUST have the RIGHT to DECIDE. And if their concerns are addressed and questions adequately answered, they'll CHOOSE to vaccinate. i am deeply worried and embarrassed to share a species with anyone dumb enough to waive that right, or worse, advocate its elimination.

I know Blue's devout are primarily Apple haters anyway, but for those of us few Apple fans, that article is sadly spot on. I've felt that decline first hand since iOS 7 / Mavericks. I personally hope this wider spread ackowkegement and recognitions spurs Apple to shape up. And for the Windows / Android lovers, I hope there continues to be some form of competition for you to mock.

The money is a donation to build a new roof which is expensive. The brick is your special perk for donating and is not meant to reflect brick costs. They wouldn't be able to afford the actual renovations if all the money was spent on bricks (which aren't even that important to the project).

Verno wrote on Sep 12, 2014, 12:30:Speaking of nano, I wonder if the ipod is finally done. I think the touches are a great in between product for kids that you don't necessarily want to have a cell phone but that can't be a huge market demographic.

The in between product is actually just an older iPhone no longer on a plan once the parent upgrades his main iPhone. Or an iPad mini. I really don't see how the touch has a niche any more.

Vaccines aren't magic. Just because one is losing its effectiveness doesn't mean the whole practice is a sham.

And vaccines are generally not 100% effective, especially not after some period of time. They merely reduce your chance of contracting a disease (usually significantly). Nothing new here except yet another case of germs adapting to our countermeasures.

What good does shaming ISPs do if broadband internet is a monopoly in most (?) of the US? I've only lived in Texas, so maybe it's different elsewhere, but here, there is no choice. Cable modem is the only form of internet which is truly fast, and there is no area with more than one choice of cable company. That's why they can add data caps and increase prices whenever they want. The only customer recourse is to cut out cable television and broadband internet, and that's like volunteering to live in 1995.

Cutter wrote on Apr 2, 2014, 22:02:Shit, you can talk to the dead but can't pull a few winning numbers out of the air?

While I don't deny that this psychic stuff is rubbish and fantasy, how can you make that statement? Surely there is a significant and fundamental difference between seeing/predicting the future and conversing with the dead. Entirely separate super powers unless there was a memo I missed revealing that all ghosts know the future.

UConnBBall wrote on Apr 3, 2014, 16:09:Now that Sprint, AT&T and T-Mobile are going away from monthly contracts who is going to pay...

What country are you in? Your numbers and assertions do not match the US situation. Sticker price 5S is $650, and big retail stores regularly sell it $50-100 less than that. The 5C is just as good for average users and is commonly $500 or less. So $700?

Plus, the new contract-free plans are actually MORE appealing now to the kinds of people who can't stomach sticker shock. Instead of $200 down and a $36 activation fee, you pay $0 down, no fee, and make 0% interest payments. If anything, iPhones are more "affordable" than ever.

All that said.. This is about tablets. There is simply no competition in the tablet market right now. You either pay $500 for an iPad Air, or you pay some amount less than that for a dust collector.